Since you chose to bad mouth me I bet you can't name the mathematical case in which there are 2 possible outcomes for a probabilistic event. Can you do that without doing a search? Can you calculate the expected variance of such an event?

Nostradamus, you are playing with semantics now. The first escape clause for somebody losing an argument. If they find they are losing an argument, they startquibbiling over the language.

On coins and probability. No, your original argument was that the probability of somethingcan be found by tossing the coin, in order to demonstrate your argument that something canbe shown to be probable by increasing the sample size. When I said that no amont of repeatinstances will make anything more probable or likely. As the coin tossing demonstrates that theonly two outcomes are heads or tails and the probability in an ideal coin will be 50% on every trial.It does not increase or decrease by any observations of repeat instances.

Relating it back to the earth like planets discussion, if we find 5 earth like planets or 500 earth like planets we cannot know the probability of life. One can only know the probability of something if theyknow the possible outcomes. In the case of the coin the outcomes are 1/2 for head or tail, in the caseof 6 sided dice, the outcome are 1/6 for any number. Since, as we do not understand how life happens,how can we determine any probabilty of life? Therefore your suggestion that this can be done by frequencyis absurd, because that commits the same fallacy of trying to find out the probability of something throughthe amount of times an instance appears. If does not matter how many times a coin tossed produces showsup heads, even 1 million times in a row, the probability of it turning up heads on the next trial is still 50%.

Now, briging this back to the next issue of induction in a scientific experiment. Again you are quibbling over the meaning of "confirmation", "truth" and "validation" You say that an experimental trial "validates" a theory. Thensay this is not the same as saying it is true? To say something is valid means you are saying it has truth-value.So you are actually saying it is true lol

What you should be saying is what modern philosophy of science says, "No scientific trial ever confirms a scientific theory, only shows that the theory has been yet to be falsified" This means there is no verification/validation/confirmationor what other word you want to play with. Newtonian physics was experimentally tested over centuries. Does this establishthat Newtonian physics is confirmed/validated/verified or made more probable? No, because it then shown to be wrong by General relativity. So what this shows us that no amount of experimental trials or repeat observations will ever establish a rule.And I am flattered you think this is my logic, but this in fact the logical work of one of the most celebrated philosophers and logicians of 20th century, Karl Popper. If you want to dispute him, you better do better than, "No, its weak" lol

When I said that no amont of repeat instances will make anything more probable or likely. As the coin tossing demonstrates that the only two outcomes are heads or tails and the probability in an ideal coin will be 50% on every trial. It does not increase or decrease by any observations of repeat instances.

That's simply wrong. Your claim of a 50% outcome is a theoretical claim, not an empirical claim. It is an arbitrary assignment. It is a property that you have chosen to assign. Just as science cannot know for sure about something you cannot know for sure that this arbitrary assignment of yours is related to real events. To claim otherwise is a failure to understand how science works. Your insistence that a coin toss must be fair or result in a uniform probability for all of the outcomes is a misunderstanding of probabilities.

What this means is that you have a very poor understanding of math. You have a poor understanding of probabilities.

Nope. I am talking about probabability in mathematics, where one sets probability based on possible outcomes.You are the one trying to apply mathematics to empirical science, by making the absurd claim that one can showsomething is probable in the real world based on the frequency of instances.

Mathematics does not apply to the real world, because mathematics is purely theoretical. It sounds like even you are accepting this now as you are starting to accept that science cannot know anything certainly and that probabilitycannot be applied to real events. Thank god the penny has dropped(heads or tails?) lol

So therefore you are back to my challenge you either reject science and all inferences, including the inference thatother minds exist because they are inductions, or you accept my argument that earth like planets have life(including intelligent life)on them. Both work on the basis of inducing a conclusion from particular to universal.

One can only know the probability of something if they know the possible outcomes. In the case of the coin the outcomes are 1/2 for head or tail, in the case of 6 sided dice, the outcome are 1/6 for any number.

Again, this is an arbitrary property that you have assigned and that does not have to be the case.

Therefore your suggestion that this can be done by frequency is absurd, because that commits the same fallacy of trying to find out the probability of something through the amount of times an instance appears. If does not matter how many times a coin tossed produces shows up heads, even 1 million times in a row, the probability of it turning up heads on the next trial is still 50%.

Again, this is all nonsense based on your rather rudimentary understanding of stochastic processes. You have assigned a probability to be 0.5, yet the evidence is that is NOT correct.

This is obviously stagnating on your ignorance of mathematics, probabilities, the scientific process, sampling, and who knows what else.

Now, briging this back to the next issue of induction in a scientific experiment. Again you are quibbling over the meaning of "confirmation", "truth" and "validation" You say that an experimental trial "validates" a theory. Then say this is not the same as saying it is true? To say something is valid means you are saying it has truth-value. So you are actually saying it is true lol

Maybe you need to take a basic class in science and logic. It wouldn't hurt for you to learn that a fact is not necessarily true. We can never know if something is true. That's an ideal separate from what we observe.

When a scientific idea is confirmed it means that more support exists to believe that something is true.

Nope. I am talking about probabability in mathematics, where one sets probability based on possible outcomes. You are the one trying to apply mathematics to empirical science, by making the absurd claim that one can show something is probable in the real world based on the frequency of instances.

How stunningly inane.

Mathematics does not apply to the real world, because mathematics is purely theoretical.

Another inane comment.

You can either be inconsistent or reject science.

A final inane comment.

Where do dream up this drivel? You can't understand even rudimentary probabilities.

What it all boils down to is this really, really stupid game.1. Something happened once.2. The universe is big3. It happened more than once

Okey, dokey.

Any evidence posted anywhere? No, unless you include the Noetic Institute, which is a group choosing to avoid the peer review process.

Again, this is all nonsense based on your rather rudimentary understanding of stochastic processes. You have assigned a probability to be 0.5, yet the evidence is that is NOT correct.

At the risk of being reprimanded by the mods, I am going to ask you, are you an idiot?

The probability of a coin landing head or tails is 50% or 1/2, because there are only two outcomes.Are you serious you are a matematician? I am truly astonished you are contesting this with me lol

From mathforum.com:

If you want to know the probability of a coin landing heads, heads is the favorable outcome. There is only one way for a coin to land heads, so the numerator of the probability fraction is 1. The sample space consists of the total number of ways that a coin can land. Since a coin can only land either heads or tails - 2 ways - the sample space is made up of only two possible outcomes and the denominator of the probability fraction is 2.

Thus the probability of a coin landing heads is 1/2, which is the same as saying that a coin lands heads 50% of the time.

What is the probability of the coin landing tails? We can do the same analysis as for the coin landing heads, finding a probability of 1/2, or, knowing that if a coin doesn't land heads it has to land tails, and understanding that the sum of the probabilities must equal 1, subtract: the probability of a coin landing tails must be 1 - 1/2 = 1/2.

In this case, both probabilities (a 1/2 chance of landing either heads or tails) remain true; no matter how many times you flip a coin, each time the coin is equally likely to fall heads or tails. Even if your coin has fallen heads 50 times in a row, the chance that the next toss will fall tails is still 1/2.

When a scientific idea is confirmed it means that more support exists to believe that something is true.

It's not necessarily true. When you state

No scientific trial ever confirms a scientific theory

I get to chuckle out loud.

Yawn, from wiki:

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, but not of zero importance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not lead to the conclusion that the theory is true or even partially true.

I just want to make an observation based on this debate. I have long noted that whenever you engagein a discussion with a pseudoskeptic, the quality and tone of a discussion is always downgraded withstupid and ignorant statements like "the probability of a coin landing heads or tails is not 50%" and "scientific theories are confirmed" and relentless adhominems.

I would like to say thank Nostradamus for being a living example of pseudoskepticism, and showingus what is exactly wrong with pseudoskepticism and why it needs to be dealt with and removed fromintelligent discussion on paranormal matters. Nothing is contributed by pseudoskeptics to any discussion,their arguments are just an endless list of logical fallacies.

At the risk of being reprimanded by the mods, I am going to ask you, are you an idiot?

I ask the mods to step back for a second.

The probability of a coin landing head or tails is 50% or 1/2, because there are only two outcomes.

Only an idiot would say that. How stupid can somebody be about math to say this? They have to utterly and completely stupid. I mean how dense does somebody have to be. It boggles the mind. Why are you assigning the same probability to the events? Only an idiot thinks this is the only outcome. I am amazed at the overwhelming lack of education displayed by this statement after I have repeatedly stated this is not necessary.

Did you see the title of the web page "Probability in the Real World". This simplistic web page offers a solution for the naive person and is not a general solution. What yo

Sorry, but learn something. A discrete bimodal event can have any probability p with the counterpart event having a probability of 1-p. This type of distribution is common with uniform probabilities exhibited when the value of p=0.5.

I think we can safely saying at this point you are beyond reason lolSo far I have cited two maths sources which have confirmed the probabilityof heads or tails on any trial is 50%. You say it isn't. If you're a mathmatician,I am an astronaut

Anyway you long lost the debate with me pal. Do yourself a favour read a bookon probability(maths), quantum physics(physics) and philosophy of science(philosophy)In short get an education.

If you are actually going to be prove me wrong and actually show me you are capable ofbeing reasonable then stop with the ceaseless adhominems, and actually engage thearguments. There are 3 arguments we have looked at so far, which I have backed bystrong argument.

1) The argument of induction to show that earth like planets have life2) The teleological argument that shows that the function of earth like planets is to support life3) The probability argument that shows that it impossible that no other planet would have life in the universe.

Here is what you need to show.

1) You need to show my induction is invalid and remain consistent with other inductions you accept as valid(gravity, mind)2) You need to show how it can be at all possible to have coherence between organic matter, inorganic matter and mind, anddisprove studies which show that ones biology actually transforms in relation to ones environment(epigenetics)3) You need to show why it is reasonable to accept and take seriously the idea that Earth, out of a estimated 40 billiontrillion planets would be the only planet to have life on it.

You have not made any strong arguments for life on other planets. You have provided no evidence for your claims.Your teleological claim is not based on any evidence.The probability argument doe snot make it impossible.

1. You need to show evidence that life can exist outside of the earth2. You need to show evidence for your teleological claims3. You need to show evidence that any of these planets can support life

On the contrary I have provided a lot of logical arguments and evidence. You have simply chosento pretend no evidence has been offered and failed to engage in any discussion on points beingmade. From the very start you have simply asserted something is wrong, without giving any reasonfor why it is wrong. I am starting to think you are a troll. I am not going to waste my time.